The Heller High Watermark

I’ve said before magazines are poor places for developing stories — the time between events and publication may be months, and assumptions may be proven wrong in the interim.

This was my take on Heller, written just after the decision, and now my Rights Watch column for the October issue of GUNS Magazine, at newsstands now.

More from the "They Hate Us Because We're Free" Department

A Justice Department plan would loosen restrictions on the Federal Bureau of Investigation to allow agents to open a national security or criminal investigation against someone without any clear basis for suspicion...

Hey, I haven't done anything wrong. They can look at me any time.

Who could possibly be against this except someone with something to hide?

Hmmmm...?

Spies Like Us

The evidence suggests McFate/Sapone was subcontracting for a firm hired by the NRA, which relies on the public's benign belief that it is a citizens' lobby, to spy on and lie to those working in the gun violence prevention movement.

"The evidence suggests"?

You mean after all this sound and fury, you don't have proof of spying as strong as, say this?

But if she does have inside dope, Bryan, maybe you can use your CeaseFire connections to help us get to the bottom of this...?

I mean, you do say you're interested in the truth...

Saturday Night Assault Specials

Declaimed Mr. Dumpty, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

Excellent! I like the way this guy writes.

We're the Only Ones Capable of Keeping Weapons in Our Homes Enough

"If someone has a weapon in their home and ... it isn't secured, hopefully they'll recognize this as a chance to get rid of it and prevent a tragic accident or have it taken during a burglary," he said.

Yo, Chief Hayes: I am so sick of this crap self-serving police officials like you spread around to disarm us while you keep yours.

Why are you automatically more capable than We the People at preventing unauthorized access to firearms? Why is your solution for us--and only us--to turn ours in?

Because you're some kind of super "Only One," with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men?

Looks Like Their Priorities Aren't Straight, Either

A decision by House Democrats to allow a vote next month on a proposal to gut the city’s handgun law has stunned local home rule advocates and could foretell a congressional overturn of a future same-sex marriage bill, according to city hall insiders.

I'm sorry...I really don't mean to focus on "city hall insiders" in a mean sort of way...

Look, ladies, gentlemen and in-betweens: It's not people like me who are trying to render you defenseless--it's your presumed "leadership" who would rather see you bashed, or worse, than armed.

Guest Editorial: The Three Most Important Attributes of a Decent Human

By Charles H. Sawders ("Straightarrow")

In this day and age when every psycho-babbling television psychologist, social worker, government agent, teacher of children and clergy are quick to list any number of attributes necessary to be a "good productive member of society", such as appreciation of diversity, multi-culturalism, and the relativism of all social and ideological structures and practices being equal, despite the consequences of any such structure, they never mention the three most important.

They are in descending order of importance Courage, Honor, Love. That's right, love is in there at a lowly third place. There are reasons for this particular ranking.

Courage is by far the most important asset a man can have if he is to be a good man. Both physical and moral courage. Moral courage being the more important of the two. It is moral courage that enables one to make decisions about right and wrong. Moral courage also enables the person who has it to stand against popular opinion when he believes it wrong or evil. He thus is able to speak out against it and to work to change the wrong or evil, even at the minor expense of popularity, or vilification or ostracism. The possessor of moral courage may even find himself the focus of intimidation by government. In many cases he must face physical attack if his opponents on the issue are extreme, knowing that if his stance is unpopular enough he will have no supporters in law enforcement. That is why he must also have physical courage.

Physical courage does not let him proceed without fear. It lets him proceed despite it. Most men would fear physical attack and/or incarceration. But the man with both physical and moral courage will not be deterred, even though he may not be desirous of the likely consequences.

Without courage, one can have no honor. Honor is made up of many different things. Keeping one's word, regardless of the circumstances is honorable. Protecting the weak, the family, the nation, and the principles of free men is honorable. Honor requires that one does not trespass another. It also requires that one does not submit to trespass by another. Without courage these are impossible ideals to keep. Honor makes it possible to love truly.

Without honor love cannot be born, let alone survive. Love requires that the party who loves has the honor to keep his commitments. Known honor of a person is the only measure of his trustworthiness. Honor demands that one not deviate from his stated principles, even when those principles are costly or result in unpleasantness. There are many ways to fake honor, and many people do. However, they invariably give themselves away when a test is applied and the cost of honoring one's commitment is heavy. The dishonorable will discover a reason that "this is different". The honorable will realize that the principle he claims to hold is still valid and it is not different just because it is to his detriment to uphold it.

Love is third on the list. Not just romantic love, but love of all kinds. Love for your fellow man or woman. That is a very hard task oftentimes. Some can love their fellow man as individuals while not being overly proud of the species. Others can love their fellow man as a species, but have no real affection for them as individuals. Either way works to the benefit of himself and his fellow man and society at large if he has courage and honor.

Romantic love is by far the most fragile. Therefore it is also the most dependent on the honor of the parties involved.

Love of country is to some an abstract idea that is not close to their souls. To others love of country is an almost physical thing in the reality of their lives. Courage and honor, though, make it possible for both to satisfy their obligations as good men.

There are those who love only themselves. They are lost. They are lost to society, to those they claim to care about and even to themselves. They just don't know it. A great many of these types become what we usually regard as highly successful by traditional measures. While they may have courage, they have no honor, for these are the types who routinely trespass others. Whether they be boardroom presidents or back alley muggers. There are few of them relatively speaking, but the damage they do far outweighs the weight of their numbers.

In summary love is not possible without honor, honor is not possible without courage. Decency is not possible without all three.

What decent man could contemplate their absence in his character?

DGU at Table Rock

I then stepped out of my car while placing myself in a ready position (weaver stance, car between the two of us, hand on side arm ready to draw.) He also got out of his vehicle and started moving towards me while gesturing with his gun.

This is a fascinating thread, complete with corroborating links to police and news reports.

More than anything, it shows the peaceable nature of a gun owner, and how being armed actually kept violence from happening. That the press noticed creates a wonderful opportunity for gun owners to write letters to the editor and emphasize that point.

[Via Matt L]

The "Only One" Who Did the Right Thing and Understands Why

"She had no legal right to keep the dog, and that's the reason we stepped in," Hunter said. "What she was doing, keeping the dog because she said it was aggressive, would be like me taking somebody's television set because I didn't like the programs they watched."

Exactly.

Good job, Officer Hunter. You were the "Only One" who did the right thing here.

Sheriff Andrews--this man deserves more enthusiastic backing than what I'm reading here.

[Via Carl S]

We're the Only Ones Giving You an Option Enough

An incident that led to an Indianapolis police officer being charged with rape Thursday began, prosecutors say, with a proposition.

"I'm going to give you an option," officer Anthony S. Smith reportedly told a woman with an outstanding misdemeanor warrant. "I can lock you up, but I really don't want to . . . or you can ride with me for an hour."

So now we're up to 11 in four months?

Think about that: We're constantly reminded by "Only Ones" apologists that we're only dealing with "a few bad apples." I don't know 11 co-workers in my entire career, which spans decades and private sector companies of all sizes, who have been charged or arrested for this kind of crap. I can't recall even one.

Via Shermlock Shomes, who writes:

I'm tempted to start posting this stuff to my blog and go into competition with you for daily posts of "Only Ones." Thanks to the fine officers of the IMPD, I think I'd beat you hands-down!

Don't compete--enhance! I WANT people to take and spread the "Only Ones" concept far and wide, and have said so from the start--after all, I don't own the concept: we owe that to Lee Paige, the Patron Saint of the Only Ones. Make it part of the wider debate--that'll never happen if it's confined to this one small blog.

We're the Only Ones Litigious Enough

"We need citizens to call us when they have a law enforcement need," Neves told the Sacramento CBS affiliate. "The last thing I can afford is to have a public policy that you can't call the Sheriff's office because you may be sued by one of the responders who is there to protect [you]."

I actually have mixed feelings about this--if I am doing something evil and injure or kill you, you or your survivors should be able to hold me accountable in all ways, including financially. I would think a police officer should have the same claim.

The reason I do the "Only Ones" series is to illustrate police and government employees having special privileges and immunities, not available to We the People, based solely on their employment status. But I don't think a cop should have fewer rights, either.

This might even have the unintended consequences of incentivizing the public not to rely on police, that is, increasing self reliance and reducing dependency on government (but then again, they'd probably then end up being prosecuted for vigilantism).

I dunno--like I said, my feelings are mixed. We've seen ridiculous abuses in the past, like this infuriating story. And I can see a need for a "fireman's rule" of sorts, and yes, risks are part of the job.

I'd be interested in hearing how others think this should be approached, and why.

[Via Zachary G]

A Call to Disarm

As Neilson wrote, "Citizens who desire peace can indulge in no greater folly than that which is summed up in the phrase, 'the best way to preserve peace is to prepare for war.' … Governments have made the war; only the peoples can make an unarmed peace."

It's not the weapons.

Good grief.

I used to think Lew Rockwell was smarter than this.

[Via Paul W. Davis]

This Day in History: August 22

King George III issues a proclamation declaring the Americans to be in a state of open rebellion.